Ink Spots is a blog dedicated to the discussion of security issues across the spectrum of conflict and around the world. Our contributors are security professionals with interests and expertise ranging from counterinsurgency, stability operations, and post-conflict environments to national security strategy, security cooperation, and materiel acquisition. We hope this site will be a forum for discussion on both the issues of the day and broader, long-term developments in the security sphere.

It's a little more pernicious when the term starts getting tossed around as a mechanism to advocate policy changes. Like, for example, in this op-ed by Akin, who is the ranking member on the HASC Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee. The good Congressman argues that the Defense Department can "mitigate the impending fighter gap" by entering into a multi-year contract with Boeing to procure additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers (the latter of which is an electronic attack aircraft, which is not exactly a "strike fighter"). Congressman Akin, in what is surely one of history's great coincidences, represents the St. Louis area, home to Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

There it is again: "fighter gap." Just rolls off the tongue (and the keyboard), doesn't it? Why so familiar? Well, we've had other gaps before, you know. There was that missile gapback in the late 50s, when then-Senator John Kennedy warned that the US was "losing the [ballistic]-missile race with the Soviet Union because of... complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies." And before that, in the mid-50s, there was that pesky bomber gap, when some analysts convinced themselves that the Soviets were dramatically out-producing the U.S. in the long-range, intercontinental bomber race. And now there's about to be a fighter gap, we're told, as Super Hornets exceed their allowable flight hours and are retired from service before sufficient numbers of Joint Strike Fighters have rolled off the production line to take their place.

So what's the problem with all of this? Well, the bomber gap and the missile gap were COMPLETELY MADE UP, that's the problem. Not only that, but some folks - led by an academic named Albert Wohlstetter - COMPLETELY MADE UP the missile gap all over again in 1974!

Am I saying that there's no such thing as a fighter gap? No, I'm not saying that, because I have no idea. Todd Akin may be exactly right, and a long-term, multi-year contract for additional Super Hornet procurement may be the absolute best thing for national security. I'm not an aviation expert, and even those folks can't seem to agree on whether there will be a strike shortfall or how significant it might be. So it's not about whether the fighter gap is as made up as the bomber gap or the missile gap, really.

What this is about is messaging, and the meaning of words. Shouldn't Akin and Eaglen be aware enough of history to know that they're using a tainted phrase? That they're directly ripping off an expression that was used more than once to identify an entirely fabricated national security scare, a military bludgeon created expressly for one candidate to smash another during a campaign?

Aren't they embarrassed to echo Wohlstetter, whose claims about a missile gap extended to accusations that the CIA was falsifying intelligence, deliberately underestimating the number of Soviet missiles in order to shape policy in a less confrontational direction? The same Wohlstetter whose anti-intel aspersions would drive the formation of the ludicrously politicized waste of time called "Team B," the CIA red team whose final report (pdf) "turns out to have been wrong on nearly every point"?

Basically, from a rhetorical perspective, couldn't they have come up with something better?

SNLII -- Talk about an oft-repeated phrase that also doesn't make sense!

I'm trying to turn over a new, more charitable, less snarky leaf, which is why I didn't put "defense expert" in quotes.

Starbuck -- Awesome.

Madhu -- Gulliver, don't some terms take on a life of their own - to be argumentative - so that the origin is no longer as important? Isn't that true of any colloquialism?

Sure, that's absolutely true. After all, to use a loosely related example, "Containment" came to mean something altogether different from what George Kennan intended just through sheer usage (one might even argue abuse and mis-usage).

That said, I find it really hard to allow for that here. The term "fighter gap" wouldn't even mean anything except that it evokes the imaginary shortfalls of the early Cold War, when the country was still trying to find a consensus about exactly how dangerous and how aggressive was the Soviet threat. Those two terms were expressly employed to paint political opponents as soft on defense and soft on communism, an approach that pretty much sums up in total Mackenzie Eaglen's rhetorical arsenal in the here and now.

Keith -- I considered including the mine-shaft gap but figured this was a joke enough already without referencing "gaps" that were expressly designed as comedy and farce.

I'll stop after this, because, well, I have to, but I think it's not exactly a novel idea that creating a sense of crisis is one way to get the public at large, or policy makers, to pay attention to pet projects. A gap implies a crisis, ergo, fund my project.

I'll stop after this, because, well, I have to, but I think it's not exactly a novel idea that creating a sense of crisis is one way to get the public at large, or policy makers, to pay attention to pet projects. A gap implies a crisis, ergo, fund my project.

Well, yeah. I understand why it's done; that's not the question here. The question is whether the people doing it recognize the historical precedent involved; that is, do they recognize that they're harkening back to a time of fabrication and scare tactics to win support for their recommended policy changes.

Yes, it happens all the time. Does that mean we should stop highlighting it when it does? Does that mean we should fail to point out the silliness of the argument? If there was a public service campaign based around the slogan "NOT WEARING YOUR SEATBELT WILL GIVE YOU CANCER AND AIDS!" would you say, "well, sometimes people need to create a crisis to win support, and after all people should wear their seatbelts, so I'm not going to say anything about the 'cancer and AIDS' bit"??

I clicked on your hyperlink to her bio, GUlliver and found that she's still doing it!

She writes that she attended college "while serving in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps."

Let's just get this out there: You don't "serve" in the ROTC. It's a class. Anyone can take it for a couple of years and NOT take a commission.

For whatever reason (medical condition, decided against pursuing a military career, blah blah blah), she did NOT earn a commission in the military, didn't serve in uniform and to my knowledge has zero days of active duty.

The phrase, however, suggests otherwise.

My beef isn't with those defense intellectuals who didn't serve. I don't give a flying fig about that.

It's just that one shouldn't paint one's resume as if one has (or, ahem, aggrandizing one's service as a certain CNAS founder did before SEN Webb tore him a new one).

Something else: She actually is really bright, very talented and a decent person. I just don't like her bio.

SNLII -- I'm with you on this one. I had something like 20 hours of military and naval science in undergrad, but I don't consider it having "served" in ROTC. I'd always wondered what that bio bullet meant; I guess I always assumed she was in the state guard or something.

SEN Webb sparred with CNAS founder Kurt Campbell during the latter's confirmation hearing for a State Department post.

You likely can find the transcript online, but there was something of a white glove slap over whether Campbell inflated his resume by suggesting he took part in a mission to Korea that, apparently, didn't exactly happen.

I'll take the blame for Mackenzie. I personally recruited her to come to Georgetown.

But as someone did note, she is bright, works hard, and has good experience at both DoD -- where she was a PMF -- and on the Hill -- where she was an LA for Susan Collins. Say what you will about her analysis -- which is too often shilling for the defense industry for my tastes -- but she has decent credentials for a "defense expert" and she does work really, really hard.

And I am not just saying this because she's a friend, but while I don't agree with her on a lot of stuff, she's not part of the problem.

Also, I happen to think there is an important point here on fighters. We are relying on quality to carry a lot of water, especially if (as seems likely to me) the F-35s buys come in far, far below the current program of record. If you consider any sort of extended conflict where we actually face an air superiority challenge, our force is very vulnerable to attrition simply through accidents and mechanical problems. In other words, we're -- I would argue -- reaching a point in fighter force structure where ANY successful enemy action could place air superiority at risk simply because we're already on the razor's edge in terms of being able to cover a extended battlespace over an extended period of time.

I would like it noted that I was speaking - in typical online water cooler fashion - about general categories of people (from which I take care not to exempt myself!) and NOT talking about any one person in particular.

I don't know any of the people in the defense intellectual community and have nothing other than the best wishes for said intellectuals.

Because, come on, we need our best thinkers thinking their best about everything under the sun and offering policy advice! And then we need the good sense to ignore a good bit of it.

Contributors / Email / Twitter

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our contributors are solely their own. These views should not be taken to represent the official or unofficial position of their employers, nor of any government or other institution.